0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The Associated Press, the New York Times Co, NPR, NBC Universal, the Washington Post, and 11 others argue that allowing the RIAA's case against accused file-sharer Joel Tenenbaum to be broadcast on the Internet is in the public interest. Some fourteen news organizations, including the Associated Press, The New York Times, Court TV, Dow Jones, NPR, NBU Universal, The Washington Post, and several pothers, are urging a federal appeals court to allow online streaming of the RIAA's file-sharing lawsuit against accused file-sharer Joel Tenenbaum. The brief filed Thursday in the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals argues that allowing Webcasting of the Feb. 24 hearing is in the public interest, and is in keeping with camera access already granted in the courts. District Court Judge Nancy Gertner, the judge hearing the case, decided to authorize Courtroom View Network (CVN) to broadcast the trial over the Internet, but the decision was quickly challenged by the RIAA. "Allowing public access to a hearing through the Internet advances substantial public interests without any harm to to the fair administration of justice," they argue. The RIAA is appealing a Boston judge's decision to allow the Webcast, which it says goes against federal court guidelines on cameras and threatens its ability to get a fair trial. "The camera access authorized by the district court utilizes modern technology for maximum public benefit, and does so without impeding in any way the fair administration of justice or compromising the dignity of the court," their brief continues. It's painfully obvious to all that the RIAA is afraid that the case will finally shed light on its inconsistent argument and extortion demands for compensation for perceived rather than actual losses. The RIAA also oddly argued that broadcasting a single trial "would not put the spotlight on the courts’ decisions in these cases nationwide or even the single decision in this case. Instead it would likely serve to highlight selectively the arguments of a single counsel in a limited part of a single case." The presiding judge, Judge Gertner, has already criticized the RIAA's request to bar broadcasting of the trial because it has long maintained that the sole purpose of suing file-sharers is to educate the public that the practice is illegal. By seeking to bar widespread broadcast of the trial it proves that the RIAA is really only concerned with frightening file-sharers with the threat of multi-0million dollar judgments. “If the RIAA’s position is to educate people about the business and legal climate of the music industry, it is unclear to us why they are appealing this decision," wrote Charles Nesson, Joel Tenenbaum's lead counsel in the case, in an initial response. "Further, we believe that the true public interest in this case is permitting civil involvement in courtroom proceedings. Our case is fundamentally about the ‘so-called Internet generation,’ and it is seemingly appropriate that such an opportunity be made available to these individuals." With the media now on the side of broadcasting the trial on the Internet it seems clear that the RIAA's argument against won't hold up to the court's scrutiny. "Far from establishing 'irreparable harm,' the Petition offers only generalities about possible risks, none of which can withstand scrutiny," continues the brief.Let's just hope Judge Gertner agrees. It's nice to see major media outlets finally stepping up to the platge and doing their jobs for a change.
